This is one of those pages that suffers from the weekly format. The “…what?” isn’t supposed to some dramatic cliffhanger, the end of this page just happened to be a good place to break the conversation, but having to wait a week to see what caught Sydney’s eye will make it far more dramatic that was intended.

In the meantime, marvel at Peggy’s incredibly spartan workbench which also happens to take a lot less time to draw than if she was a big slob. Don’t worry, this is just the tinker bench in her room, she has a proper one down in the armory.

For anyone wondering, they have a machine shop down in the vehicle bay and a… fabric… fabricator… is that just a tailor? A seamster shop? Whatever it’s called they can drop a design into a machine and it makes a sleeve they can slide over one of the choker blanks which is how they came up with Sydney’s so quickly. As soon as Arianna said “Halo” she was thinking of color schemes, icons, t-shirt designs and how you’d incorporate those orbs into action figures.

Edit:
Rebecca Cohen who does the fun GynoStar comic I’ve linked before is trying to get a Netroots Scholarship, which basically means she can attend an otherwise expensive conference and hobknob with other feminists and bloggers. Stop by and read her comic and if you’re so inclined, throw her a vote.

Discussion (418) ¬

If I may put in my two Quatloos worth, there is another issue I would like to address in the meta-human population. There is the old overused cliché (sorry, redundant) that good=beautiful and bad=ugly. This is an easy shorthand to use in a comic or in an animated film (I’m talking to you, Disney). This makes it easier for the kiddies to identify who to root for, but what ever happened to old saying “You can’t judge a book by its cover”? This has had the effect of instilling the presumption in real life. It has been shown that better looking workers actually get bigger raises and promotions over their less attractive co-workers.

I understand that if you are filming the next Avengers movie, not many people would pay to see Larry the Cable Guy as Captain America, but at least try to tone down the racial profiling or obligatory scar/limp/handicap in the villain.

Yeah I’d like to avoid that too, but of course, I do want scary looking villains. Of course, a lot of that has to do with presentation. A beautiful woman with a thousand yard stare holding a knife, standing over your bed can be pretty scary too.

This is the kind of discussion I would hear on Dr. Michi Okaku‘s radio show. He said much the same thing as written here on such anomalies. They would have to be either a more complex random set of genes deeply recessive. Even so are they natural or artificial?

The funny thing about the evolution thing is Marvel’s history with the “X-gene” is complicated.

originally they were “the children of the atom”, the explination being radiation in our world was mutating humans and their offspring. Charles Xavier was explained that his parents worked on the atom bomb.

then comes the 70’s they went the natural mutation route to better explain so many.
and to make older mutants.

From what I can tell, the Marvel universe is just extremely eclectic in the reasons for mutants. I think it’s likely that pretty much all of the reasons you listed are true for at least one mutant. I mean, just try reading through all of the books for the Marvel Universe RPG……. with that information present, a character could be a mutant for practically any reason you can imagine so long as they’re born like that (otherwise they’re a meta-human)

I kid, I kid, or do I? (I do not.) But really, that old cliche gets used because it works. Though it’s still fun to play with. However, I would posit that whatever powers they have would be for nothing if they weren’t built like powerhouses. After all, you can shoot pew pew lasers out of your eyes all you want but it amounts to nothing if you’re so out of shape that people can get close enough to stab you. And since superheroing is such a physical occupation that anyone successful would grow physically fit.

Orrrrr…..if they aren’t championship bodybuilders, they would be incredibly stout and in shape in that manner like a sumo wrestler. Those guys are actually incredibly healthy and in shape despite being fat as sin. Muscle fits on different people in different ways.

It’s the faces that would carry more variety, faces, scars, and tattoos. That’s what would carry the ugly or beautiful. Maybe an ugly hero that got scarred before gaining his powers? Or a woman who as a side effect of invulnerability has a face so eerily beautiful it looks like porcelain and be evil as can be? Of course beautiful evil people falls under the trope of Evil is Sexy, so you can’t win either way.

Beautiful women are evil? Sure, some of them get so full of themselves and their “perfection” that people who do not meet their standards of perfection are beneath them and not worth recognizing; sometimes known as the Stuck-Up Bitch. I saw that a bunch of times in high school. Most of them seem to grow out of it when they realize that employers are looking for a science degree or actual physical work if you want to get more than minimum wage. “Blessed be the Geek, for we shall inherit the Earth.”

Not the original intent, but we can go with it. Beauty is a powerful weapon. Sure,not all women or men considered beautiful are cruel or evil, but the trust we seem to give the beautiful can be abused. That’s why it’s such a provocative tool in writing.

The idea of an inhumanely beautiful woman or man being a monster is a very useful trait. I’m not talking about a simple “10” like a supermodel. I’m talking about someone who ranks a 50. Look at how Dabbler abused it for giggles. Now, imagine someone more malign using such intense beauty to overwhelm the mind. Intense beauty is a dangerous weapon for sure.

In a side note here, a major nationwide magazine (Time, I think) built a composite photo using as wide a population as possible, printing it on their cover. People across the country wanted to know who this beautiful face belonged to. Humanity seems to associate “beautiful” with a “least variance from norm” ideal, accepting (reasonable) extra height as a sign of “healthy growth” (how many times have you heard that something unhealthy would “stunt your growth”?). Even one extreme trait results in labels like “freak” or “ugly”; multiple such could prompt a “monster” verdict. Earlier discussion of control & architect genes makes me wonder if some gene isn’t shutting off certain appearance mutations in favor of “supers” mutations.

I don’t know about unhealthy habit, but a period of severe sickness can slow the growth of a child. I know someone that had a whole year without growing(his 10-11 year). He stayed in an hospital over half of that year, so sick they thought he would die many time. From what I could understand, his body diverted all its resources to fight what he had and recover after that.

The major factors that seem to affect beauty are facial asymmetry and to a much less extent, unusual features. Having a bump on the side of your nose looks worse than having the same bump on both sides of the nose. If a feature appears on both sides of the face, it seems like it is meant to be there, but if it is on only one side, then it is from disease, injury, mutation, etc. which are less desirable in a mate, seen as less healthy.

Actually, the symmetry thing does happen to be true, at least in regards to facial structure (i.e. bone structure), overall average skin quality – this has been established in multiple studies, and you can test it out yourself by looking at all the “composite of a population” pictures that software makes so easy now – while they may not your personal “most hot” vision, the “average” person, with relatively symmetrical features, will appear healthy and fairly attractive. Cookie cutter, yes – but not in a way that reads “unhealthy”.

Scars sometimes get exceptions because they can be “rugged” and a single mole might get ignored as well because it’s not a big deal. But asymmetrical facial bones are pretty much universally considered unattractive, and the consensus is generally that the reason for this is that the body will mostly be symmetrical if it is healthy, and that asymmetry is usually a sign of something being seriously off in either the coding or the execution of the genes (since it would happen developmentally).

Marilyn’s “mole” btw, her “beauty mark”? Was makeup. Her actual face was INCREDIBLY symmetrical, as were her luscious curves, so she’s not your exception.

A better exception to the rule might be Harrison Ford – still considered handsome even though his nose is slightly crooked due to an early breakage. However, he’s almost the exception that proves the rule, as it were – he has long used the slightly crooked nose to his advantage by taking on a lot of rugged leading man roles, where his famous “crooked smile” has a rakish (and therefore heart-thumpingly impish) look. He often has played bad boys (Han Solo) or characters with a puckish side (Indiana Jones), to great effect.

Please notice that Harrison Ford is a guy, too, though; I don’t think it’s just me that has noticed that men can get a pass on their looks more often than women. “Sitcom mom and dad” generally conjures a “fat guy with thin, attractive woman” mental image, after all.

Fun fact though: people will tend to rate people as younger-looking and slightly more attractive (as confirmed by at least one twin study), if as an older person they have a little extra weight in the face; it reduces wrinkles, is the the assumption, but seeing as the heavyset are also more likely to be able to conceive easily and early, one could take it to be a multi-level sign of reproductive health, especially in women.

And yes, the weight thing is real. We have evidence from several areas of anthropology and medicine that support that; firstly, that women who are extremely active athletes will often go several months without a period (their bodies reserving reproduction, one assumes, for when they have the calories to spare for it, as a woman’s blood volume alone increases threefold during pregnancy!); secondly, that those with eating disorders that greatly reduce body fat or muscle mass, such as anorexia, also stop having periods; third, that the lowering of the average age at which young women have their first menstrual cycle in the west has consistently occurred alongside increasing average weight – not just an arbitrary, weak correlation it appears, as the girls who have their periods youngest, at 8 or 9 years old, tend to be heavyset or even obese; fourth, that archaeological evidence suggests that the first true population explosions occurred alongside agriculture – specifically, raising of grain of animal husbandry; fifth, that even in modern hunter-gatherer societies, the average caloric intake compared to physical activity is much lower than in agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers, even without using “protection”, will tend to breast-feed for several years and this will tend to work as natural birth control, with several years in between births, whereas agricultural families will often have many children in a row, year after year.

Not saying it’s ALL based on reproductive health – I arbitrarily like beaky noses, myself, for instance – but a lot of it is, and to be honest, the worst example to go against that IS Marilyn Monroe, because she looked, shall we say, extremely reproductively healthy (which goes to show you SHOULDN’T just go by physical appearance – if I’m not mistaken, she was also bipolar, yes? If nothing else, even if you believe she didn’t kill herself, the best reason to doubt the suicide explanation is precisely because it didn’t quite fit with her previous, well-noted suicidal ideations. Eeesh).

Yea, years back (when there were a few still left) anthropologists contacted isolated tribes and showed them photos of various women, to see who they found attractive. Specifically choosing tribes which were so isolated they would not have been contaminated by outside influence.

All the tribes surveyed found modern super models to be unattractive. Their ideal were cuddlier women. When asked why they did not like the thin models, the typical answer was that they looked like they had been suffering from some disease and would not live long.

Valid point, but I’d tear into Bryan Singer’s first “X-Men” before taking Disney to task; sure, Scar and all that, but on the other hand they’re the studio that finally got Quasimodo laid.

“Fun” story: A local film critic lambasted “The Dark Knight” because of Two-Face, but not for the reason you might think; she was angry that the film abruptly introduced “a horrible monster” that children might find too scary. Not the gleefully, heartlessly murderous Joker, not the hallucination-inducing Scarecrow, but the man with the severe burns. *facehoof* Isn’t that insane?

It is however a note worthy truth, Handicapped people, and those with less than flattering looks are either overlooked or punished in one way or another while their more attractive coworkers get passed up the ladder at an exorbitant rate and often without the use of the merits which should belong to the harder worker. I’ve experienced this in my own life especially after I became handicapped. Like being unable to even get a job for the last 10 + years until just recently. That and the only job I have been able to get is a low paying pizza delivery job.

Some thing just came to mind.
There getting Sydney all ready for the press conference introducing her to the world, and well she still has her eye patch.
Now this is only a temporary thing, but if that tests positively will she have to were it all the time?

Sydney has already been assured by the doctor (who also has healing super powers to call on, over and above her medical training), that she will only need the patch temporarily. So it is fairly safe to assume that any pertinent tests have already given the all-clear.

That and DaveB having confirmed that the eye-patch will be coming off soon. Presumably only keeping it on during the press conference and its immediate aftermath, if any.

I am technically blind in my right eye but I can still see after a fashion so i still have some stereoscopic vision that I would lose if I wore one and my eye looks normal so. No eye patch. Funny I wanted to have one for awhile after watching the Dr. Who episode “Inferno” where the third Doctor goes to a mirror universe. Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart is clean shaven with a scar and eye patch. Called Brigade-Leader (see Brigade-Fuhrer) of a fascist Republic. UNIT is the RSF for Republican Security Forces. We know nothing about the rest of the world but it is done very well from uniforms to weapons.

Ahh, reading adamas‘s reply (which only appeared on my screen when my posting refreshed it), makes me realise I misinterpreted your use of “testing”. Audience reaction rather than medical. I will quietly slope off now.

It has been proven in the comics universe that all you have to do to disguise your hero identity from your closest friends and co-workers (who might even be a world famous investigative reporter) is to simply put on a pair of eyeglasses and comb your hair differently.

unless your Maxima , short of full body painting i don’t think she can disguise herself at all. though i doubt they will do the secret identity bit anyways, harder to move about in public but odds are ARC is already monitoring sydneys friends and family for any trouble.

Superman also slouches, which explains the inches. He stutters and at least in my mind thanks to Christopher Reeves, has a note of constant insecurity in his voice. Superman’s disguise is actually quite good. You don’t need to hide your face, just make it so people would never believe you could possibly be super.

Me? I always thought Clark represented how Kal-El felt about his place among humans. He’s an outsider looking in and even with all his powers, he’s unsure of his place. He may look human, but he is about as close to human as one of H.R. Giger’s creations and that creates feelings of alienation and nervousness even with a close base like his parents.

reminds me of a little known and never really used aspect of Greek gods.

they were described as having fluid bodies (change at will, could be pierced and harmed, but it always healed immediatly and never really killed)
as well as bleeding Ichor, a poison that killed mortals on contact.

So Greek gods were constantly shapeshifting (especially in size), from small than a human to being able to sit on Mt. Olympus and reach the ground with their arms. with lethally toxic blood.

I think Beast or Wolverine are the ones that are the most plausible. Contact energy manipulators, like Gambit, Boom-Boom and Dazzler are the next most plausible.

Even with an 10-foot wingspan, Angel could not weigh more than about 30 pounds (reference from the California condor for comparison). Scott Summers’ force beams make be think of Newton’s Third Law: “For every applied force, there is an equal but opposite reactionary force.” If he hits someone hard enough to knock them across the room, he will end up throwing himself across the room too, just in the other direction. Weather manipulation and temperature control (even explained as hydrokinesis) would require so much energy that explaining how much power Maxima needs is like comparing a nuclear power plant to a 9V battery.

Psionic abilities seem to count as really creepy action at a distance, so telepathy, possession, and psychokinesis are just psycho. Even Magneto’s electromagnetic manipulations fall in this category.

Transformation abilities, like performing a reversible transformation from 6’6″ tall, 300 lbs to 7′ tall, 400 lbs of “living steel” (for that matter how about reversibly changing from 6′ tall, 175 lbs to 9′ tall,1000 lbs and green?) just don’t fit conservation of mass. Rogue’s power stealing is also a transformation that requires her to alter herself at a cellular level to use the abilities of another within seconds of contact..

Nightcrawler and Shadowcat exhibit dimension-passing abilities (which might help explain the differences in mass of Colossus, Hulk, Vision etc.). After that, things just get really weird.

Superpowers probably just allow the individuals to selectively tweak the underlying code. If you can rewrite the line that says “today is sunny” to read “today is rainy”, then energy requirements are irrelevant.

How about “dozens of tornadoes suddenly appear behind the plane I am in.” That is pretty specific and high energy for just a “rewrite God’s script for the weather.” Weather systems take time to build up to really nasty levels. Storm gets it to happen in seconds.

Given that I was using computer terminology, the inference would be local re-writing of universal laws, rather than divine laws. Or, taking it even more narrowly, re-writing the code for the section of the Matrix that we (or at least our hypothetical heroes) live in.

But, any one of the three takes work, so I am fine with that.

Time only exists as one of the elements manipulated by the code. Be the source nature, our robot overlords or divine. If you can manipulate the code, then neither energy nor time are problematic. Everything that is required for changing the local area from the previous state to the new desired state would be altered accordingly.

this reminds me of the fan theory that the Marvel universe is actually a computer generated universe like that in (Star Ocean). The abstracts are command programs, and some of the “heroes” and “villains” who come and go are players. With some avatars that get popular being later programmed with their own AI and reinserted, and why death is meaningless as bringing them back to life is as simple as reactivating them.

Galactus would then be a program designed to free up server space from excess characters and maps that go unused.

I usually explain elemental abilities as part of an unknown dimensional reaction in which the dimensional imprint quality of an individual (simplified as “Astral Quality”) matches that of certain types of matter. Thus thus their imprint reacts with that of other matter granting them control over said elements as though they were an extension of their own body to various degrees depending on the level of match and intensity of the imprint (strength of the astral body).

Theoretical dimensional physics adds this possibility based on the idea that different items give off a different imprint signature at different individual intensities.

The force reaction I saw explained away via a defense aura absorption field, basically the energy isn’t coming from inside their bodies, but being projected from an aura field around the body that is a rip in dimensions connecting to their “astral body” acting as a filter and focus for the energy which is the (presence) of the dimension translated into the physical dimension as energy. The backlash then has this field between it and the body, thus the backlash simply goes back into the subdimension field.

wolverine is actually harder to explain (in his current state) due to the conservation of mass law. Marvel copped out with the whole extra dimensional mass thing, which is WAY more complicated than dimensional presence translating as raw energy upon exposure to our dimension.

You know this makes her the strangest one out of the group. I mean she looks normal and she doesn’t have a long or complicated origin story in getting her power. Her orbs have a mind of their own (I mean if they didn’t cause her to be stuck at the parking lot… would she have been there for the fake bank heist?). Now there is talk about possible guided actions and her not fitting the typical trend.

That’s already been explained because her “super power” isn’t something she is, it’s something she has – the Orbs. Good chance they could have gone to anyone under the right circumstances. And who knows, maybe over time their influence will make her figure get a kick re-start. ;-)

The orbs may be intelligent. But the things we have seen them do so far are just as explainable by built in safety features for powerful devices. A staple feature in the Judge Dread stories is that their lawgivers (very, very nice guns) are keyed to each judge individually, to prevent use by unauthorised personnel.

There are plenty of contemporary attempts to do the same thing. Be it finger or palm print recognition or some other means. Albeit that compromises can impair operation. Requiring a pin number to be entered before the safety can be set to allow firing is a sensible precaution. But looses what might be critical seconds. DNA recognition would be a superb option. But doubtless would take too long with current technology (albeit getting less sci-fi and more feasible every year).

But the objectives are the same. Recognise that powerful items should be limited to appropriate personnel. Find some means for the tools to uniquely identify authorised users. Ensure that they cannot be appropriated by others. This can also be extended to making sure that the user does not leave them (where they might be misappropriated) anywhere other than secure locations.

Plus, should the authorised user become incapacitated or die allowing suitable alternative personnel to take custody of the tools. Other protocols, that we have not seen yet, might include preventing deliberate misuse. Such as the inability to use guns for anything other than self-defence in Weapon Shops of Isher.

The signs of intelligence we have for the orbs, so far, have been associated with safety protocols like the above. Possibly through their own active intelligence. But, equally, they have done nothing that could not be achieved by a sophisticated technomagic program to guide their flight/immovability, using something like the above principles.

Although we have had indications there might be something more to it that has not been mentioned to the inquisitors, the linking of the orbs with Sydney in the first place might be the sign of a flawed protocol (“your owner is the first person to pick you up”) a compromise protocol (“in the absence of an authorized user, bond with the first person who does not exhibit criminal behaviour”) or just common sense reasoning by an intelligent entity. Perhaps, baby aliens thinking she is mummy (just because they seem technological or magical does not prevent other options).

The immobility they exhibit following similar reasoning. Whereas we can get no clues from Sydney’s own behaviour, given the fact that she snagged the tube on the door herself (issue #25). Even inanimate objects and abstracts can find their way onto The List.

Brown Orb: I don’t think I like the Gold Lady.
Red Orb: What is she doing?
Max: Fine! Enjoy your road rash!
Green Orb: I want to stay near Mommy.
Blue Orb: We aren’t going anywhere.
Max [ loses her balance and falls on the ground. Uses her flight ability to pop back up ] : That’s impossible! Do you have any idea how strong I am?

It was my initial speculation that the orbs are artifacts from some advanced alien survival pack. Or what every galactic explorer would have. Some how one was lost on earth. They had not yet been scanned to anyone yet so when Sydney found them they scanned and there you are. No one else but her can use them. she may have left the instruction manual or her brain couldn’t handle the automatic down load into her cerebrum. So she has to do it on the fly or by the seat of her jeans.

Since Sydney is a tomboy she won’t be wearing such minor skin revealer’s as the other women. Not that she has too but then there is fan service so sooner or later she might.

the orbs could also have a biomass/biometric reader, if the imprinter is not the one trying to use orbs the orbs could just either not glow or try to get out of the false users hand, read harem trying to use the truesight orb and the orb shakes her until she lets go

I know I should be making a comment about evolution or slow plot lines or something (I don’t mind them. This comic is awesome.), but I can’t help but think the same thing every week. He still doesn’t know. Sydney is about to do a press conference about her superpowers, and her best friend who she owns a shop with, and who she left waiting for her return from a traumatic thing several hours ago, doesn’t know. Poor guy is about to be back-handed in the worst possible way.

Joel doesn’t have a TV in the shop if I remember correctly he won’t know until the news teams start showing up.

Joel: Excuse me why are you here.
Report: And here we are at the comic book store owned by the new Superhero Halo.
Joel: Who is Halo?
Report Sydney Scoville is Halo you didn’t know?
Joel: OH god she wasn’t lying about the superpower… Run inside and locks the door. After making sure the reporter was outside.

That was one of the reasons that last week (when it was pointed out by a couple of readers that it looked like she was about to get her collar), I erred on the likelihood that it was a temporary wristband, or similar, instead.

As it is, I note the chafing or discomfort she seems to perceive (in panels 2 & 3) as a possible portent for her rebelling at wearing one.

Equally though, at the start of the comic, she may have just gotten in the the habit of not wearing her choker off-duty, and the shots we saw were at moments she had not gotten into uniform.

When I started reading this comic I was bothered by the collars, but I figured I’d eventually get used to them. I was wrong. I hate the stupid things now. Seeing Sydney wearing one really bugs me.
I’m going to keep following the story of course. I only nitpick because I care.

Yea, they do seem odd to me too. Especially at odds with anyone who might have feminist feelings about them (so coming across as a hard sell to Maxima, for example).

But, looking at it from Arianna’s point of view. The unit needs distinctive market branding. It is important to avoid negative connotations. An armband with a unit logo might bring up mental images of Nazi swastikas, for example. Not the kind of image you want to invoke in what is actually a new arm of the military tasked with policing duties. Ones which are more than likely to require use of force, at some point. With the resultant media attention and possible accusations of “police brutality”, “a police state” and the like.

Realising that the choice of it being a military organisation, and thereby requiring military uniforms, insignias and the like is out of her hands. Finding a highly distinctive trademark (the choker) which can be personalised (de-emphasising the military and highlighting the role of the individual) and will draw attention away from that, is actually rather clever.

Given that it likely incorporates a bunch of other technology in it too (building security, personal transponder/IFF, communications and the like), it is a very good way of ensuring that their superiors (and security staff) can easily see if someone is being lax and not keeping it with them. Actually being a lot more visible than traditional photo ID badges.

The fact that it winds up feminists would be an added perk to Arianna. The thought of seeing Maxima’s expression, when she was first required to put it on, probably ranks on a par with her visions of merchandising.

I agree with everything you said, Yorp, and would like to add that the “collar” visual actually provides the public with an (subliminal for some, overt for others) implication of servitude, thus further blunting public concerns about supers rising up to become overlords – instead, they become perceived as humble public servants that help and protect the public.

…or they could be seen as kinky trendsters that are going to rebel against authority like teenagers with nukes…

Arm bands were used long before the Nazis and long after. Watch just about any Japanese show or movie. Only narrow minds will link them only to Germans. Also the swastika was used by many before the Nazis and in Asia now long after. The symbol of Ganesha.

That symbol turns up in all sorts of cultures, including various african, and native american groups. Not surprising since it’s such a simple shape. I seem to recall that some amerindians used it as a symbol for the sun. It’s a shame the nazis ruined it for everyone.

Not unreasonable points. But armbands with an insignia worn in combination with a military uniform would draw that connection from people much more often than you might think. Certainly that association is drawn fairly frequently by the media. Probably enhanced because such has also been favoured by fascist and other far right groups before and since the Nazis.

To test my assertion, I did a Google using “armband insignia images” as the search. More than half the photos were of Nazi Swastikas. The only other noticeably large category were (despite “insignia” being typed in the search) those that lacked logos but just had words or initials. Things like “MP” (military police), “Air Warden” and, of course, the distinctive Waffen “SS”.

There were a few red crosses in there too though, I must admit. But the organisation was founded in 1919, so pre-dates the Nazi’s establishing their brand logos.

Interestingly enough, the Red Cross have had to re-brand their own logo in certain parts of the world. Not because of association with Nazis, but because the cross was seen as being too close to a crucifix. Hence the sister organisation that uses the Red Crescent where the Red Cross would not be welcome.

Everyone knows that God has been tampered with, by superhero cartoonists. This explains the “area effect testosterone poisoing weapons of mass distraction” that the supers get for a body. They’re designed to distract some alien invasion from a womaniser planet in the future…

P.S.: if you think the alien invasion is male, guess again. I said womanizer, not MALE womanizers. When they appear it will prove cartoonists are shameless about tampering with God! (oh, and Dabbler is just partly one of them, but they look better, but she has EXPERIENCE more than ‘em together, it’s going to be fun)

I still want too know how the human bodies are converting the organic energy into the various other forms of energy. I also want to know if there are special dietary needs for supers (maybe based on their powers).

I mean it like this, Where does the energy come from to shoot lasers out of the eyes? Do Sid’s orbs draw power from her body or an outside source (she is kind-of smallish, limiting the power potential if the energy came from her)? How has religion adapted to the presents of supers (I place my money on my favorite line “God did it. Now we just need to ask God, Why He did it?”)? If Aliens are responsible for this, does that mean people would look closer at the “Ancient Alien” theory (see the History Channel)?

We know that Dabbler is an alien, who uses magic and technology. The fact that she is real in that world, opens up three huge areas of exploration for any answers. Over and above the genetic, natural and other options. Superpowers could just tap into extra-dimensional energies, directly alter matter into energy (a chocolate bar contains a lot more energy than you can get by making use of its calories alone, if you can do that), do it all by magic, be divinely (or demoniacally) granted. The options are vast. As are the possible combinations.

Is anyone else experiencing severe delays accessing the site and (more frequently now than yesterday) getting bounced with the error below?

“No data received

Unable to load the web page because the server sent no data.
Here are some suggestions:
Reload this web page later.
Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE): The server closed the connection without sending any data.”

I am experiencing no delays with other websites or internet usage. Plus I ensure that there is nothing downloading or the like when I try to get onto Grrl Power. And I have rebooted, just in case. But it took 3 attempts to get this to refresh. And I anticipate it might not respond when I attempt to post, for that matter.

If you are a Terry Prachet fan, you will get what my next short rant will be referencing:

If there are documented cases of enteties like Dabbler, with ‘magical’ abilities, and these super-humans popping up within simmilar time frames, there may be a simplistic solution- Crystallized belief.
Point- There are probably ~6 billions humans on the planet.
Point- Every human has a belief that there is an ‘ideal form’ of person, such as the greco-roman ideal.
Point- (Theoretical) Magic may be powered by internal belief, such as belief in one’self to be capable of superhuman abilities.
Point- (Theoretical) Belief in large quantities may become “charged” or “attuned” into the shape of a specific Ideal. Large quantities of energy of ANY sort are usually unstable.
Therefore- These superheroes are the equivalent of lightning rods for belief, absorbing the energy, which forms the person into the shape of the amassed belief, which is then dispersed as their ‘powers’, changing one form of energy (belief) into another (strong/weak force, gravity, increased speed, increased electromagnetic resonance, FTL communication/transport [Harem], etc.)
To this end, and to verify this theory, what happens when a super-being dies? Is the energy released in a belief state, or do their powers run haywire until the power goes out?

The Orbs might act as a series of valves and containers, drawing in belief from the entities around them and collapsing the energy into a form that the wielder can use.
(A concept that comes to mind is that Halo is actually the ‘capacitor’, with the orbs absorbing power constantly, she is increasing her total energy level indefinitely…. If she dies, I would not be surprised if the explosion vaporized everything within a state or so of her, or she might become superhero-style radioactive, causing the average joe nearby to become charged into a super-being)

Anyway, I would like to know- what do y’all think of this theory? Do you have your own?

Another possibility is ‘Consensual Reality’ (as portrayed in the excellent ‘Abandon In Place’ by Jerry Oltion). In ultra-simplistic terms, much of what is commonly considered possible / impossible is only so because enough people believe strongly enough in them. That includes physical laws. When sufficient people are sufficiently influenced to think otherwise, that is when things get interesting.

Not a theory but a hypothesis. People continually say “theory” when they really are talking about “hypothesis” which includes the ancient aliens idea. It ain’t no theory. Theories are supported by data, hypotheses are not.

That is your problem, “whatever” so just imagine you needing to be correct about what you say. No slovenly slang versions allowed? Could you handle it? Do you care if you make sense or not? Sadly too many do. Either lazy, don’t care or both such falls a nation.

It used to wind me up when people used the term “taking a quantum leap forwards”. Given that quantum is a physics term which (for the relevant part) refers to the study of teeny little effects. So instead of saying “taking a massive leap forwards” as they think, what they are literally saying that the forwards movement is so small as to be undetectable to the naked eye.

But, I have come to change my mind on that matter.

I now believe that common usage must trump technical jargon. Firstly, and most importantly, by definition, it is being commonly used (ergo also likely to appear as a dictionary definition) so it is ridiculous for a minority who do not approve of the term to insist that everyone else is wrong. Plus language evolves. Usually organically, through usage. Words morphing as time and the needs of society change. So what used to be valid is now an archaic term.

Although campaigns to “correct” individual words or phrases can sometimes win over enough supporters, they need to do so by showing the merits of it to the general public. I do not think that one can argue that “morally my definition is right and yours is wrong”.

Google tried to arbitrarily do just that, very recently, in attempting to define “ungoogleable” as only applying to them. Not realising that dictionaries only list definitions that are actually used (in this case being “unable to be found by internet search”, rather than being company specific). Unlike some of us, they do not just make up new words for the fun of it.

Secondly, although least importantly, not everyone has specialist knowledge. So it smacks of intellectual elitism to insist that jargon, reliant on such, be applied instead of familiar usage.

Thirdly (because it does not always happen, but is a key argument when it does), different specialities often use the same word in different ways. Just last week I linked to a biological term. But, in defining it, they had to clarify that every speciality within biology used one key word differently.

So, if the same word is in current use, but with multiple different meanings, which is the “right” one? As always, one just has to apply context. If speaking about a specialist subject one should clearly use the jargon associated with it. In the absence of which, common usage should obviously win over minority usage. However much more neatly the definition might seem to apply.

Feel free to mount a campaign to change majority usage, but until it succeeds, people who use the common term are right. As corroborated by dictionaries. Who thought about it long before I did. :-D

The issue is that when you’re having a discussion about science, you can’t rely on common use jargon. It’s like trying to have a discussion with someone about Star Trek who insists they can’t travel across the galaxy because “warp” means when wood gets all bendy.

In any case if some lay person says that germ theory is “just a theory’, their ignorance doesn’t invalidate mountains of evidence and suddenly vaccines stop working. It just means that person is ignorant of scientific terminology, and probably has some ideological axe to grind that makes them resistant to educating themselves in that area.

I agree that if you are dealing with a specialist subject, then you should apply the appropriate jargon. And said as much. So if talking physics, then physics terms and definitions are appropriate. If you stray across multiple areas, then it becomes more complicated. If talking about physics and biology, which takes precedence if a common word is used, but with different jargon meanings?

Clearly though, regardless of which takes priority, scientific terminology would still be appropriate in such a conversation.

However, the root question in this topic included key points such as “magic” and “belief”. So quite clearly is not restricted to a purely scientific discussion. Ergo common usage takes precedence. And to most people the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are interchangeable. On top of which, contextually the question asked was quite clear, so, in my opinion, the distinction was a distraction from any answer and not pertinent in and of itself.

An interesting theory. What would clinch it would be the appearance of superheroes in other cultures. The ones that we’ve seen in Archon fit the “western” idealised body type, but other cultures have other ideals. Do all superheroes look the same, or would for example the superheroes in China conform to the oriental ideal rather than the western one.

Maybe Sydney actually does have innate superpowers, but just does not realise it? She has got the manga looks. Following your logic of superhero genes making you develop into a culturally idealised heroic image. Except, in Sydney’s case, her idealised image was skewed towards the manga version. Especially as she is a tom-boy, so growing up she would not have visualised her adult looks as being like a big barbie doll.

And maybe Maxima’s parents were massive fans of the classical film Metropolis? Complete with its iconic golden metal woman. The very first robot in the movies.

Interestingly enough, the makers of the film I-Robot needed to create masses of c.g.i. robots, in order to convey the impression of them being everywhere. So decided to look back at robots in previous movies for ideas. And found the most inspiring to be the one from Metropolis.

Yep. At the very least they are highly reflective. But, in close up, some do have what I take to be glowing runes. And even if those are not luminous, it does look like there is a light source in the middle of each orb. So my impression is that they do actually glow. I guess we will find out when Sydney turns the lights out. Probably sometime before Christmas.

If you look back through previous weeks comics, you can even see that DaveB‘s attention to detail means that even if an orb is not in frame, but is close, then the nearby objects (most often Sydney’s face or hair) very often pick up a distinctive hue matching the colour of one of the orbs.

Absolutely love this page. It’s just…simple. But mostly I love that your art has really gone to another level (It’s over 9000!!) and it shows in this simple, yet very well done page. The facial expressions, subtleties, and framing – just great.

Just FYI, I knew right away that I liked this page and I “felt” like the art was just better. But I had difficulties trying to sort out “why” I felt that way – it took me a few minutes to articulate and realize what I really liked. The fact that the “Awesomeness” of the page was also subtle also made me pull a Bill & Ted…

Ok, Two things, if she doesn’t wear the choker in earlier comics(first few) is chalked up to her giving Ariana the finger, why isn’t Anvil wearing one in the same comic? and second thing, is that a thong on the pegboard against the wall?

So, I know its regaurding a previus Episode, But what If Math actually wasn’t expecting a face full of mysterius Orb? Weknow Math thinks 100 steps at a time, we also know that Halo is as random as a flee on a suger binge. So Math Thinking 100 steps at a time wouldnt be so simple, Because with a Super ADHD Maniac like Halo, there is no advanced steps (kinda like Batman and the Joker, The Joker Never does what you expect him to do.) wich is why in the second Fight between Halo and Math, Math won, he Shortened his expectations. Knowing that at any second Halo could esesentiolay be changing tatics for combat in a most unexpeted way, He whent a head and matched styles. Since not knowing her next move, even when He did pervious, he just Improvised and kicked her in the shin.

Question. Isn’t it odd that Max has such long perfectly shaped nails? I mean her lips are naturally red so she doesn’t wear makeup so why are her nails so perfect? Are they naturally red and long too? seems kind of weird. I mean if it is by choice I don’t see her character having long nice nails that could possibly get in the way. (Long nails get in the way of a lot of things that is why pianists cut their nails and such). And if it’s natural….Why? Really Why? I can somewhat understand the lips…sort of, but the nails too? Though they have big boobs that get in the way too so maybe I’m over thinking this. I mean it’s just her nails.

actually almost all the attractive (cough super cough) girls have nail polish on (unrealistic in reality but I could overlook that) and have long nails from what I can tell. I mean anvil has long red nails when she seems to be a hand to hand fighter. She would break her nails all the time why would she keep them long? I know, I know I’m nitpicking, but the writer is a guy so maybe he wouldn’t know about the trials and annoyances of nail maintenance. Nail polish will always, ALWAYS get chipped on the absolute stupidest things. So nail polish is absolutely annoying to deal with. Most girls just don’t have the patience ( I know I don’t) to paint and touch up so they go for the natural look. Long nails will always break if they even have the smallest chance to. If you do any heavy lifting, or use your hands in anyway that chance increases. So girls who do a lot of work with their hands usually cut their nails short to prevent annoying breakages.
Man, I’m ranting about nails. Ugh I have no life. Excuse me while I go sleep.

It’s a fair point about the nails. When I’m coloring it’s usually quicker to just pop the same color on all the nails, but maybe I’ll have a panel of all the girls complaining about their nails after the first big fight, even though that feels stereotypical, I guess it is a real issue.

I remember, from before I started commenting, and became addicted to it, seeing someone (probably DaveB himself or someone quoting him) saying that Maxima does not wear makeup. Like her skin, that look is just part of her superhero package.

Dave has seen the super hero clichés, decided what ones he wanted to keep (including from an aesthetic point of view), but then decided on why. He knows, even if we are only getting hints in-comic. For some reason super heroes look good. Makeup and all for some (possibly including Anvil, although I do not know).

I am guessing, but with reasonable confidence, that broken finger nails are not a problem for them. Unless it happens for rule of funny. But, unlike all the other comics out there that do it, there is some real (comic world) reason behind all of it.

Google Banner

I'll just leave these here for your convenience - and obviously to drive a little traffic my way. Bottom line is If you like the comic, vote, share and tell others! Maybe someone else who will enjoy the comic will find their way here.